Did anybody else see it? What did you think? I know there was a previous post announcing the interview was upcoming but nobody posted any comments on the interview itself. What do you guys think?
I thought GW did an alright job. He was talking about what he wanted to do in the next term and Russert kept wanting to discuss past history. Although I agree there are some questions about Bush's Air National Guard history, those became irrelevant after GW's first term as President, just like whether Clinton inhaled became irrelevant after his first term as President. Once a person has served all or at part of a term as President, what they did in office is far more relevant than some campaign mudslinging.
That idiot Russert didn't get this and squandered an opportunity to discuss Bush's plans and things that have happened during his first term. Then Russert quotes a poll of democrats and idependents to show Kerry has a lead. Huhhh?? Aren't the democratic registered voters supposed to be supporting Kerry or another democratic candidate? I wish they would have used another interviewer for such a golden opportunity like this. Somebody who is not a functional idiot and doesn't miss so many issues and their key points.
The democratic candidates don't get it either. Kerry blasts Bush on how if Bush wants to discuss "aircraft carriers, bring it on." Huhhhh???? WTF!!!! Kerry commanded a river boat in Vietnam. Bush flew a jet fighter in the Air National Guard. What do either of them know about air craft carriers based on their service back then? Nothing. Neither had aircraft carrier experience. How about looking at their recent voting records while in public office (Bush as President and Kerry as Senator). That would be far more relevant and tell us what kind of job they might do as President. But, of course, that would be doing somethign logical and intelligent instead of trying to throw around some smoke screen.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
I missed the interview, but i did read the transcripts and I saw bits and pieces on the interview this morning. I thought he did a good job, and I'm actaully glad that Russert did the interview and didn't hold back on anything. I don't think Pres Bush would have came off so good in my eyes if the interviewer would have been a Bush friendly news guy and thrown him the easy questions.
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
There was link on Drudge, don't know if it's still there.
I saw the interview then went and read the transcript.
Bush did alright. Remember he ok'd the questions before the interview took place so he could have told Russert I'm not talking about te democrats polls if he wanted to.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
I think Russert asked the same old tired questions and basically got the same old tired answers.
At this point, I don't give a flyin flip about his term in the NG. If he went AWOL, there would be records of it and the damned liberals would have the whole net papered with them. He served, end of story.
The intelligence thing is just getting ridiculous. Russert must have asked him the same question in four different ways, only to end up at the same answer over and over again. They used the best intelligence they had and made the best decision based on that intelligence. I still maintain that we had enough reason to roll up Iraq without ANY secret intelligence. The whole world knew what Saddam was about. I don't see anybody arguing THAT point. What about all the atrocities that Saddam committed in front of the whole globe? Everybody conveniently forgets all about the evidence that the whole world knew about because we haven't found a nice neat stack of WMDs. That's nonsense.
In this case, the interviewer left much to be desired.
Well then what about North Korea. Bush said that the reason to invade Iraq was because all diplomatic avenues were exhausted, were they?
North Korea has concentration camps and gasses it's own people and has basically told us to stick it, on more then one occasion. They actually have Nukes not the ability to make them. Why Iraq ?
Yes Hussein gassed Irainians and Kurds. We sent rumsfield over there with presents for Hussein and shook his hand.
I think no matter how you feel about this adminstration you can make your point from the interview yesterday.
Maybe Russert didn't ask Bush about what he was going to do in his next term so the dems. couldn't say it was nothing more then a campaign speech for Bush.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Well then what about North Korea. Bush said that the reason to invade Iraq was because all diplomatic avenues were exhausted, were they?
Are you kidding? 12 years and 17 resolutions isn't enough diplomacy? All the while, he's murdering and terrorizing his own people and supporting terrorist training camps. Good grief. Any more diplomacy and he would have died of old age. Just how long should we have waited?
What would you suggest we do with Korea at this point, attack them? We are in the middle of diplomatic relations now, the same as we were with Iraq before the war. What else would you have Bush do?
Face it Charlie, diplomacy failed in Iraq because Hussein is a mad man. We can only hope that diplomacy works in Korea. If it doesn't, we can't let Korea run roughshod over us or the rest of the world. If it comes down to it, someone may have to stop them. That someone may be us. What else are we going to do? Stick our heads in the sand and act like it isn't happening? We wouldn't be sitting here discussing this today if our forefathers took that approach, would we?
Come now, if Bush were a Democrat you would be all over him for getting us into a war for the wrong (dare I say intentionally mislead us) reasons. Clinton would have been nailed to the cross for a missing 8 months of reserve service. Clinton lied about an affair, Bush lied about why we were going to war with a mid-eastern country. Clinton sadly destroyed whatever chance he had to see his full potential as President come to be, sadly George bush is doing just the opposite, reaching his full potential. Clintons negative impact is greatly personal in nature, the negative impact Bush's presidency will leave will have far reaching consequences for all of us unfortunately.
Bush's qualifications to be commander in chief have certainly been called into question by the turn of events in Iraq and the erroneous reasons we've gone to war. A strong leader knows when to yield a heavy hand and when it's right and judicious not to. Not going to war is not a sign of weakness. Miss a few months of reserve duty, lead us into a war under false pretenses and then run for a second term against an honest to goodness war hero and well yes everything is back on the table and yes it's ok to question Bush's command of the military.
first of all i liked the interview because Bush doesnt give a (bleep) about what Kerry ar screamin Dean have to say about him. KERRY WHO? he doesnt play washington politics. another thing that i liked about the interview was that Bush said that Congress was given the same intelligence as He received before the Iraq War and it was the same intelligence that congress voted on. So this crap that Kerry would have voted differently had he known there was no WMDs is BULL(BLEEP).
Quote:
Come now, if Bush were a Democrat you would be all over him for getting us into a war for the wrong (dare I say intentionally mislead us) reasons.
no actually we would suppport him to the fullest just like we did with the Bosnia deal with Clinton, i would also be careful about the misleading part and what exactly did Bush mislead us on? we knew what would happen if saddam had WMDS and by the KAY report saddam had the right tools in place to build them so had we acted later it would be too little too late.
Quote:
Well then what about North Korea. Bush said that the reason to invade Iraq was because all diplomatic avenues were exhausted, were they?
HEY CHARLIE P LET ME REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, YOU EVER HEARD OF RESOLUTION 1441?? YEAH IT WAS UNAMIOUSLY PASSED BY THE UN. BASICALLY 1441 SAID WAS FORK OVER YOUR WEAPONS OR IF YOU DONT HAVE ANY SHOW US PROOF YOU GETTING RID OF IT? THE ONLY RESPONSE WE GOT FROM IRAQ IS THE MIDDLE FINGER, WHY DID THEY GIVE US THE FINGER? BECAUSE FOR OVER A DECADE THE UNs SANCTIONS ON IRAQ DIDNT MEAN ANYTHING AND NOTHING AND I MEAN NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE IRAQIS WHEN THEY VIOLATED THE OIL SANCTIONS QUITE A FEW TIMES. SO BUSH BASICALLY ROLLED UP HIS SLEEVES AND BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF SADDAM WHILE FRANCE AND GERMANY SAW ALL THEIR INVESTMENTS AND MONEY GO DOWN THE TUBE.
OH YEAH WHATS SO BAD ABOUT BEING IN THE NATIONAL GUARD? DO YOU LIBERALS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE NATIONAL GUARD? BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE MAKING IT SOUND LIKE NATIONAL GUARD DOESNT DO JACK, AND LAST THING I WANNA SAY IS THAT IF BUSH MISSED HIS ALABAMA DEAL WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT HE MISSED IT? SURELY THEY WOULD KNOW IF HE MISSED IT.
GW Interview With Tim Russert
